Dad wanted to scare daughter’s boyfriend. It cost him 20 years.

By at 21 June, 2009, 6:00 pm

Fathers can relate to this. A Davenport dad wanted to scare his 17-year-old daughter’s boyfriend. So he shot a revolver inside his house. Stupid? Oh, yeah. But here’s the deal. Orville Lee Wollard, 53, of Davenport, is a former Sea World employee with no criminal history. No one was injured. The bullet struck a wall. But when Orville Lee Wollard, 53, rejected a plea deal for five years’ probation, he was found guilty by a jury of aggravated assault with a firearm and now must serve a “mandatory minimum” sentence of 20 years in prison, reports the Lakeland Ledger . The former Sea World employee has no criminal history. “I would expect this in the former Soviet Union or from some banana republic but not from the United

States of America,” Wollard said at last week’s sentencing. “But when that firearm was discharged and came within probably inches of him and impacted your wall, that elevated this in the Legislature’s eyes at a minimum to a mandatory minimum of 20 years,” Circuit Judge Donald Jacobsen said. Wollard’s lawyer, Philip Averbuck, said his client was willing to accept a couple of misdemeanors but didn’t want to take the plea deals because he didn’t want to have a felony on his record. “That was just too much to ask him to swallow,” he said. Now he’ll have 20 years to think about that plea deal. More FloriDUH

Read the rest here:
Dad wanted to scare daughter’s boyfriend. It cost him 20 years.

Categories : Featured Articles | Florida



Comments
Florida State June 24, 2009

He doesn’t deserve that much time.

Katie July 1, 2009

The guy acted recklessly, yes, but 20 years? Sure, that makes total sense. Lock this guy up for 2 decades when he’s obviously not a threat to society but let rapists and pedophiles go after five years. That’s the problem with this broken system.

adam July 3, 2009

20 years may sound harsh, but it’s because of how sentences are handed down when a firearm was used in the commission of a felony. He shot at the kid. That’s aggravated assault, which is a felony.

The state tried to give him an out by offering the plea deal, but he didn’t want that because he would have a felony on his record. That meant the case had to go to trial, which meant he would be subject to state law on sentences for felonies involving firearms.

So the bottom line is that he was going to have a felony on his record one way or another. He called the state’s bluff and lost. The guy is an idiot.

Andrew July 7, 2009

And now the boyfriend can go around the house whenever he likes :-)

Mike Annable July 23, 2009

Usually in cases like this his sentence will get reduced after the dust settles.
But..he has a mandatory. The judge had no discretion. For reasons like this, a mandatory sentences don’t work. We have to trust our Judges, they are educated people who earned the title.

Jason Bing August 1, 2009

Oh, come on. 20 years is way too much.

And think of all the killers who walk around free as a bird!

Sasha Sorenson October 1, 2009

I believe Orville Wollard was trying to keep his 16 year old daughter home from running off with her almost 18 year old boyfriend. The boyfriend, persisted in disappearing with her for days at a time ignoring repeated requests and rules set up to keep their daughter safe. I know the family.

Since this had been going on for too long, I think Mr. Wollard was so upset by this time (he had already had 3 surgeries and his wife had a stroke and heart surgery during the same time frame) he had probably gotten to the point where there wasn’t much more he could take. Since the older teenager was arguing with the girl’s mother over the fact that she refused to let the two leave again after barely coming back from an Amber Alert; Orville came out from sleeping in the bedroom and shot a bullet into his own wall. Poor judgement perhaps but with all other attempts he was desparate.
Also in regards to the judge, with all the power and knowledge he has, surely he can JUDGE Wollard – rather than say that he has no choice even though he felt that it was too strict. For example man 1 drops a huge rock on his neighbor, killing him. He gets 20 years. Man 2 drops a pebble on his neighbor’s toe and it bounces off, but because he dropped a rock on the man, he also gets 20 years.

H Wollard June 21, 2010

Judge Jacobsen is a sad excuse for a judge. O’ Hara is lucky but should not let his guard down too soon.

lost August 18, 2010

who let the village idiot become a judge ?

jaywalkers beware

Jimmy Jim October 21, 2010

For twenty years, he should have shot the boyfriend in the head.

Alicia December 6, 2010

This is really unfair. The man just wanted to scare some one away and maybe for the sake of her daughter too. Nobody was hurt so why make it a big deal. 20 years is too long and obviously not justice.

S. Wollard January 24, 2011

In response to Andrew, oh no he cannot come around the house as much as he wants. This event has make me a stronger person and parent and if he shows up at the door now he’ll be meeting up with mama bear.

Prison Boyfriend January 31, 2011

Don’t fire your gun unless you mean to kill. 20 years if plenty fair for someone who is so reckless.

S. Ford August 11, 2011

If the guy had wanted to shoot the boyfriend – he would have. This was obviously a warning shot. Afterall he was in the auxillary police force so he knew how to aim. Why didn’t the cops do something when the family called them? Guess that wasn’t worth the paperwork but arresting the father was a feather in their cap.

Leave a comment